ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on Jan 20, 2022 12:57:06 GMT -7
So if he saw onersti, he didn't see wheat. What do you think he saw ? I'm pretty sure he saw what he wrote that he saw...a grain... That the Indians called onersti(which is corn).... And we happen to call corn (corn). He saw corn. Indians grow corn, not wheat. Indians cook with corn. Interestingly enough he goes on to include one of your receipts of the period, one involving said corn, not wheat).
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 20, 2022 13:08:20 GMT -7
What do you think he saw ? I'm pretty sure he saw what he wrote that he saw...a grain... That the Indians called onersti(which is corn).... And we happen to call corn (corn). He saw corn. Indians grow corn, not wheat. Indians cook with corn. Interestingly enough he goes on to include one of your receipts of the period, one involving said corn, not wheat). "That the Indians called onersti(which is corn)" Corn is the French, English, or Dutch translation of the period.
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 20, 2022 13:11:38 GMT -7
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on Jan 20, 2022 13:11:56 GMT -7
What period? It's what we call corn today... Onersti. The stuff they pop and sell at the movies. Makes me poop funny. Next thing you'll tell me, Ricky Bobby was sponsored by a corn bread company.
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 20, 2022 13:23:22 GMT -7
Natives traded their furs at the local trading post for beads and trinkets. The sewant was then used to purchase trade goods, weapons, clothing, tools, bakery goods, grain, fruits or vegetables.
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on Jan 20, 2022 13:24:15 GMT -7
The quote mentions nothing of trade.
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 20, 2022 14:07:16 GMT -7
The quote mentions nothing of trade. Trade was Bogaert's whole reason for being there. You have to look at the bigger picture. The natives were pissed. They had been getting screwed, by the Dutch and that opened an opportunity for the French. I'm not saying I'm right, or that you're wrong, just that you haven't yet offered a convincing argument for your belief. Chances are, we'll never know what he really saw. Mis-interpretation is one of the big problems we face when trying to decipher the past.
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 20, 2022 14:14:19 GMT -7
Wheat was measured out in schepels as a medium of currency to purchase land.
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on Jan 20, 2022 14:26:53 GMT -7
The quote mentions nothing of trade. Trade was Bogaert's whole reason for being there. You have to look at the bigger picture. The natives were pissed. They had been getting screwed, by the Dutch and that opened an opportunity for the French. I'm not saying I'm right, or that you're wrong, just that you haven't yet offered a convincing argument for your belief. Chances are, we'll never know what he really saw. Mis-interpretation is one of the big problems we face when trying to decipher the past. I don't have to believe anything for something to say what it says. It doesn't say wheat. It doesn't use a word used for wheat. The context doesn't even provide for wheat. There's no purpose to it. You're creating an abstraction. Abstractions are not welcome in good history, and not in especially documentary editing. Documentation is it. You can believe that the mohawk had wheat in the early 17th c all you want, but you can't use this document to cite it. It's just not there.
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Jan 20, 2022 14:30:31 GMT -7
I think he saw the pukwudgies.
In all likeness gentlemen good conversations to be had. Excellent points are presented from both sides.
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 20, 2022 14:39:31 GMT -7
You can believe that the mohawk had wheat in the early 17th c all you want, but you can't use this document to cite it. It's just not there. I'm not trying to use this document to cite anything. Who was it that said it was a poor translation ? On that we can probably agree.
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 20, 2022 14:55:47 GMT -7
I don't have to believe anything for something to say what it says. It doesn't say wheat. It doesn't use a word used for wheat. The context doesn't even provide for wheat. There's no purpose to it. You're creating an abstraction. Abstractions are not welcome in good history, and not in especially documentary editing. Documentation is it. You can believe that the mohawk had wheat in the early 17th c all you want, but you can't use this document to cite it. It's just not there. I'm not saying it was wheat (but it could have been) , just that; Why would he list corn and maize in the same breath if they were not two separate things ?
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 20, 2022 15:02:46 GMT -7
The houses were full of corn that they call onersti, and we saw maize;
If we translate all the words that mean corn to corn and rewrite the sentence it will read:
"The houses were full of corn that they call corn, and we saw corn;"
Now that just doesn't make sense. Does it ?
|
|
ewoaf
City-dweller
Posts: 203
|
Post by ewoaf on Jan 20, 2022 15:22:20 GMT -7
The houses were full of corn that they call onersti, and we saw maize;If we translate all the words that mean corn to corn and rewrite the sentence it will read: "The houses were full of corn that they call corn, and we saw corn;" Now that just doesn't make sense. Does it ? There's no "saw" in the original. Where do you keep coming up with that?
|
|
Joe
City-dweller
Posts: 170
|
Post by Joe on Jan 20, 2022 17:00:53 GMT -7
The houses were full of corn that they call onersti, and we saw maize;If we translate all the words that mean corn to corn and rewrite the sentence it will read: "The houses were full of corn that they call corn, and we saw corn;" Now that just doesn't make sense. Does it ? There's no "saw" in the original. Where do you keep coming up with that? Mine, ours, our translations are all the same regardless of source, yet you say the original is different. Please show us the original.
|
|